10 ms·

Is this how Russia ends?

56 points by Manheim 5y ago

troon-lover 5y ago
samhyde69 5y ago
If imperialism is lindy, Russians have a massive leg up compared to america, which has a much poorer record of integrating its ethnic minorities
Nasreddin_Hodja 5y ago
> One day, Vladimir Putin will no longer lead Russia. Putin isn't the first ever russian leader and is not last. Next leader may be Ramzan Kadyrov, for example.
Pet_Ant 5y ago
I'd like to see deunification of Russia to Duchy of Moscow and spin off the other oblasts as independent states. It secures the region while undoing some of the colonisation. More countries I feel should be broken down into smaller independent states. More democratic that way. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Duchy_of_Moscow https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Duchy_of_Moscow
- samhyde69 5y ago
  Sure. But let's start with the usa
- jansen555 5y ago
- dmitriid 5y ago
  > It secures the region while undoing some of the colonisation It doesn't necessarily secure the region, as now you will have conflicts in the Caucasus and weakening of Central Asian borders esp. with Afghanistan (which were always complemented by Russian forces). Don't forget, there will also be a lot of hurt feelings along the lines of "we were a large powerful country, look what happened to us, we must gain everything back". Edit: Also, who gets to keep the nuclear weapons?
  - oneoff786 5y ago
    Whoever has them gets to keep them. Same with the oil. Seems unlikely that any split of Russia would happen smooth and nicely
  - Aspos 5y ago
    Those are literally the Russian propaganda talking points. I've seen reasonable and intelligent people who used to believe these sincerely. Seems like you are under a similar influence.
  - adventured 5y ago
    > Edit: Also, who gets to keep the nuclear weapons? Russia will keep the nuclear weapons. From the split there will still be a Russia, it'll hold Moscow and St. Petersburg for example. That new country will still be a significant economy with a large population (Western Russia obviously by far holds most of the nation's population density). Ideally they'd downscale the number of nukes they have (with the US also doing so), but that might be hoping for too much. The biggest problem with the splintering will be what China and North Korea do in their regions near the present Russian border. China would have to be very tempted to conquer more of Asia (some territory bordering the Sea of Japan and Okhotsk), going up the coast to open up more routes for their navy forces into the Pacific.
    - dmitriid 5y ago
      > From the split there will still be a Russia, it'll hold Moscow and St. Petersburg for example. Ah yes, the well-known locations of Russia's nuclear weapons, Moscow and St. Petersburg > That new country will still be a significant economy with a large population (Western Russia obviously by far holds most of the nation's population density) Population density does not translate into significant economy. Regions that don't receive subsidies from the federal budget are located mostly along the Ural mountains. Rather far from the capital cities. And you're forgetting that if Russia gets split, most economic ties between the various regions will be be either severed or significantly disrupted. The fall of USSR was only 31 years ago, and apparently people are unable to either remember it, or read up on it. > China would have to be very tempted to conquer more of Asia That's a very good observation. China will definitely move in to grab Siberia, aka the source of most of Russia's raw materials such as oil (so no "still significant economy" for the rest)
- yike321123 5y ago
  It sounds like a good idea but would this actually work? Russia itself while it pretends not to be is a very ethnically diverse region. The people living in certain sections of this area are very very different. Along with the fact that the population density varies from region to region how would with even give proper representation to those within the northern regions? Suggestions like this should be taken lightly as other nations have undergone similar "democratic" unifications such as ethopia and india which have lead to the further establishment of their systemic castes. In Ethopia we are starting to see the start of their civil war due to these underlying issues. While the current government claims it to be a regional conflict the underlying issues are much more severe.
- g8oz 5y ago
  There is a better chance of Texas seceding than Russia breaking up. And realistically neither are going to happen.
  - adventured 5y ago
    There's excellent reason to doubt that premise is correct: Russia has a long history of losing and gaining territory. The last thing Russia has been is stable throughout its history, a break-up is far more likely than the opposite. Realistically Russia has no future other than being splintered. Nothing can stop that future outcome, it's already being pulled at now. Adding salt into that wound, the world now knows how exceptionally weak and backwards Russia's primary point of power is: their military. The projection of (supposed) immense military power has been integral for many decades in holding big Russia together, through fear, intimidation, and so on. They've burned up enormous resources trying to force it to remain together over time; it has broken their people, it has broken their potential, it has impoverished the Russian people to an extreme. And today we know they don't even have a potent military to show for it. And now the Russian people are being confronted with the consequences, the cost, of trying to force big Russia to remain together (the Russian people had been temporarily sheltered from paying that price for much of the prior two decades, and those days are over). Russia has to keep burning resources to force big Russia to hold together. That will increasingly come in the form of the Russian people watching their standard of living vaporize, on top of having lost essentially all human rights under Putin's two decade dictatorship. They will soon have nothing to lose, and they will react accordingly (although on a delay): prepare for revolution as an outcome.
    - watwut 5y ago
      I don't see all that many Russia regions trying to split up now. And to add, there will be no revolution in Russia for years. Revolutions happen only after police, secret service and other similar forces were weak enough for long enough. Russian ones are strong currently. There is no organized opposition to speak of, so even if they became weak overnight, it would still took years till the discontent organizes itself enough to make revolution.
- pelasaco 5y ago
  We saw it in the 90s and in that point of time it didn't make the region any safer. You could buy any soviet weapon everywhere. I think one of the reasons that US, UK and France were happy that Ukraine gave back their nuclear arsenal to Russia was exactly to avoid it being sold in the black market to some third country in the middle east.
  - adventured 5y ago
    What we understand now is that the US (+ allies) should have purchased that arsenal and dismantled it (with Russian oversight), rather than allowing Russia to take it.
    - pelasaco 5y ago
      yes, that's accurate. It would probably demand different effort and budget however.
- giraffe_lady 5y ago
  "secures the region" from what and for whom? Assuming there is a single point of view from which this is true, and that you share it with the people living there, doesn't sound like less colonialism to me.
  - hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago
    From Russia, of course. It is Russia that started the war with Ukraine now, and previously in Georgia and other places. We (Europeans) need a decent neighbor we can collaborate with, not a bully. We can disagree on many things like with Hungary for example, but Hungary is not having a fit over some issue and doesn't invade Romania for example.
    - postalrat 5y ago
      Keep the invasions to the middle east and asia where they belong. /s
      - giraffe_lady 5y ago
        Either as a joke or chillingly honest, I think this is basically where US and european foreign policy is with this.
      - hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago
        I believe by now the USA has finally learned that there is no single case where an invasion makes sense. Not only you won't help anyone, you just increase the number of people killed and further destabilize the situation you intended to "fix". BTW I consider the invasion on Afghanistan and Iraq as a pure fit of Bush over his inability to deal with the circumstances that provoked 9/11.
      - watwut 5y ago
        Yes, it would be much better for middle east and asia if Russia cleansed Ukrainians out of Ukraine and managed to continue to Poland, Finland, Moldavia, Czech Republic and so on. Somehow, magically, middle east would then became peaceful. As long as there is no world peace, no other world region has right to care about its security.
- hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago
  If the main thing is securing the region, deunification is not necessary - denuclearization would do just fine. Currently nobody is helping Ukraine in their tragedy only because of Russian nukes.
- CountSessine 5y ago
  Maybe… Something to keep in mind is that land-locked countries experience slower economic growth and have lower GDPs than countries with access to ports. Russia is mostly restricted to their Black Sea ports but they still have something. Break Russia up and you’ll be condemning a lot of people to a lower standard of living long-term.
  - adventured 5y ago
    > Break Russia up and you’ll be condemning a lot of people to a lower standard of living long-term. That's of course not necessarily true. You haven't factored in the retardation of economic outcome that the present union is causing because it can only exist through the extreme and persistent application of force (which is very substantially regressive for human development). The reason they keep getting authoritarians century after century is because Russia as it presently stands should not exist, they can only hold it together with force. That comprehensive application of force destroys liberty, creativity, free expression, economic growth, investment, and so on. You can simultaneously have economic negatives from the lack of a port, in a landlocked Russia spin-off state scenario, and be better off being out from under the forever strangulating authoritarian umbrella of big Russia. That is to say, that's just how horrific and dampening of human potential it is to be under the boot of authoritarian Russia. There's a good reason so many nations that were formerly dominated by Russia are now exceeding them in GDP per capita.
    - CountSessine 5y ago
      There's a good reason so many nations that were formerly dominated by Russia are now exceeding them in GDP per capita. “Isn’t ruled by Vladimir Putin” is highly predictive of GDP, but “has a warm-water port” is far more predictive. Who is doing well? Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Georgia, Azerbaijan. Who isn’t doing well? Kazakhstan, Kirghizistan, Tajikistan… There are other variables. “Who has oil”, for example. But “who has unencumbered access to world trade through the sea” is the best.
    - nevermindiguess 5y ago
      It would be interesting to hear why you think Russia is an authoritarian state. Have you lived there? Have you studied it deeply? Do you have reliable sources to substantiate your claim? You certainly repeat what the western media says, but they are hardly an independent or unbiased source (speaking of authoritarian regimes). To me it looks like you may be making a lot of assumptions without having first hand experience or professional knowledge on the subject.
- kwere 5y ago
  Outer Manchuria & Siberia has been chinese since ancient time moment
- throwaway3968 5y ago
  In the pro-Western Russian circles, until recently, there was a notion of Great Neo-Russia. A supposed liberal democracy that would arise in the same borders, after putting everyone with blood on their hands on trial. It is now shattered to pieces by the tragedy of Ukrainian people. But there aren't any secession movements either (other than Chechnia, a can of worms of its own). We have no idea what awaits us, literally anything is possible.
- elric 5y ago
  I'm a bit puzzled by the matter-of-factness of this comment. You're essentially talking about impinging upon a people's right of self-determination. It has a kind of colonial smell to it. Calling it more democratic seems a stretch at best.
- jl2718 5y ago
  What about Ukraine?
newaccount2021 5y ago
[dead]
hello_hn_ 5y ago
thriftwy 5y ago
- Manheim 5y ago
  Leaving such a comment is rather strange and bring nothing of added value. I suppose you try to say that you discredit anything from Gessen. Can you elaborate on why?
  - thriftwy 5y ago
    She is routinely used as a "fake Russian" by the Western press, whereas she left Russia decades ago (I think) and nobody noticed. This continues the policy of never listening to any actual Russians.
    - JKCalhoun 5y ago
      Maybe you can link to an interview with an actual Russian then as a foil.
      - thriftwy 5y ago
        Let's start with https://svpressa.ru/war21/article/328443/ https://svpressa.ru/war21/article/328443/
        Manheim 5y ago
        "former Minister of Defense of the Donetsk People's Republic (DPR) Igor Strelkov." interviewed by a newspaper that isn't allowed to use the phrase war is not a very impressive alterntative to the Ink interview. But thx for sharing
        thriftwy 5y ago
        Let's not listen to actual Russians because we don't like them and their word choice "We have a Russian at home" "Meanwhile Russian at home" "Masha Gessen"
nkurz 5y ago
Nice interview. I thought one of the most insightful parts was near the end: AG: The West is aiding Ukrainians while wiring Russia money every day for oil and gas. MG: Exactly. Biden's speech was not a great democracy speech because it was hypocritical. The accepted rhetoric of "We don't want to be pulled into a shooting war with Russia" translates as "We feel bad, but we'd rather Ukrainians die than risk the lives of our own citizens." I'm not saying it's completely wrongheaded, but it does undercut any rhetoric of solidarity.
- TrackerFF 5y ago
  IIRC, the rationale behind continuing to pay Russia for P&G is that the alternative would hurt Europeans more than it would hurt Russia. Energy prices are pretty bad at the moment, over here in Europe.
  - pelasaco 5y ago
    beside that, it would undermine the popularity of the support to Ukraine if the consequences from that support are too harsh to the Europeans. I'm not saying that I agree with that, but if Diesel reaches 3 euro/liter, if Gas prices are too high, people will start to demand an end of this War, even if that it means Ukraine must support some not ideal condition (i.e lost of territory)
- ShivShankaran 5y ago
  >The accepted rhetoric of "We don't want to be pulled into a shooting war with Russia" translates as "We feel bad, but we'd rather Ukrainians die than risk the lives of our own citizens." I'm not saying it's completely wrongheaded, but it does undercut any rhetoric of solidarity. That's not the reason at all. The main reason and also why airspace cannot be closed is that NATO cannot have a boots on the ground for a conflict with a major power like Russia. Involving NATO in conflict is the ONLY reason why this war would turn nuclear. And very fast. It would be absurdly stupid to send troops to fight on behalf of Ukrainians. Biden and his son have investments all over Ukraine and he is just terrified of losing all of them. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/01/us/politics/biden-son-ukraine.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/01/us/politics/biden-son-ukr... "Among those who had a stake in the outcome was Hunter Biden, Mr. Biden’s younger son, who at the time was on the board of an energy company owned by a Ukrainian oligarch who had been in the sights of the fired prosecutor general."
Barrin92 5y ago
I find Gessen's characterization of Russia as totalitarian confusing. Totalitarianism in particular in the historical sense that Gessen uses when they draw parallels to the 20th century requires complete popular mobilization. The people are united in society, society is united by rulers, the rulers all culminate in the singular dictator, and so forth. However Gessen correctly points out that loneliness and atomization is everywhere in Russia. It may be repressive, but there's hardly a level of energy, ideology or unification in Russia that could render it totalitarian. The same is true almost anywhere in the modern world. Nowhere are there going to be millions of brownshirts patrolling the streets for the party. I mean, even today you can argue with Russians on the internet, the country is still as weird as it may seem more liberal right now than it was during any point in the 20th century. There's state television and crazy commentators of course but the reason the war can continue if anything seems to be more indifference than zealous support. Russia today is a society that runs on fumes, and the grandiose predictions by Gessen like 'nuclear strikes on Poland', or breakups rest on comparisons to the high energy, combustive situation in 20th century Europe. Even characterizing the war as 'big and imperial' seems sketchy when it is downplayed as a special military operation, hidden from the people and being fought by a professional army and private military contractors in a fundamentally 21st century almost hybrid way.
- panarky 5y ago
  Is "mobilization" really the primary indicator of a totalitarian regime? I think the root word "total" might be more indicative. When most aspects of a citizen's life are dominated by the party or the state, and alternative or competing non-state institutions don't exist, that's totalitarian. Russia looks quite totalitarian according to that definition, with everything from local government to media, religion, business and cultural institutions tightly controlled by the the central clique of mafia-style oligarchs. Does any independent civil society exist in Russia?
  - Barrin92 5y ago
    No there isn't much of a civil society but neither is every facet of live in Russia controlled by anyone. If you're an average Russian right now you work in the private sector in a job of your choosing, you have a faith of your choosing and go about your day, there's no party or state to be seen. (what 'party' even, as Russia isn't communist any more). Oligarchy and totalitarianism are opposed concepts. Russia is indeed pretty corrupt, oligarchic and mafia like, but that means there isn't that much state capacity left as private and public interests are divided and self-interested. Actual totalitarians first annihilate the oligarchs which siphon from the state. Stalin was totalitarian. Mao's red guards were totalitarian. No comparable force exists in modern Russia.
xyzzy21 5y ago
This is how Russia separates from the EU/USA/West. It won't end with this. The title presupposed that the West is "indispensible" - it's NOT. As is already being seen as the Petrodollar teeters and other currencies are being adopted for oil. In terms of dollar value - it's a self-created disaster.
jl2718 5y ago
This is how it was ending before the push for EU/NATO membership of former Soviet states - a long slow disintegration into independent states run by emergent tycoons and kleptocrats propped up by new markets. For instance, a global mining company promises investment in a region if they can get a new government with favorable policies for them. The old Russian plutocrats get a piece of the business and everybody’s happy. Now it’s different. Putin’s regime may not survive this crisis, but regardless, ‘the west’ has once again become a threat to all Russians, and the next regime may be a response to that. I’ll accept any recent example of a interventionist war-driven regime change as evidence against this prediction. A nationalist Russian Federation is a lot more dangerous to us than a kleptocracy. The press loves to characterize Putin as a madman. Same with Saddam Hussein and Muammar Ghaddafi and every other flashy dictator with expensive tastes. This is just stupid. Their thinking is more like an overpaid CEO than fundamentalist zealot. That makes them predictable and controllable. You don’t know what will come with the next regime. Even if you remove all animosity and nationalism, there’s still going to be a fight over resources. Putin had an entire state military apparatus to use against his people to secure those resources for himself. We do too, but the cost will be much higher. Putin was willing to sell his country just for a little bit of luxury and personal security. I’m not saying that was a good thing, but it was a structure that we knew how to deal with. The military and economic posture to effectively deal with radical populism may be very different. Pontificating on this subject has been all the rage among military theorists since Huntington’s thesis, with trillions spent on the assumption that we knew what we were doing. Now we learn that we didn’t get it quite right. There’s a lot I don’t understand about the doctrine that guides ‘the west’, and I’m not necessarily skeptical, just uninformed in some ways. I’d like to understand the threat model we are operating under, and the basic strategy to control those threats. Or maybe it’s economic opportunity we are after. For whom? What does the world look like in their best vision of it? Do the nations and people that oppose ‘the west’ have an accurate view of that, or has it been unfairly demonized? Somewhere there is either a legitimate clash of interests, or a severe miscommunication. Perhaps we ought to commit to only killing each other over the former, and keeping track of exactly what that is. Somehow I doubt that wars could be sustained in that circumstance.
alkonaut 5y ago
It’s certainly how “a Russia” ends. We consider nazi Germany different from Germany, in the sense that nazi Germany ended and a different Germany came along. Let’s hope something like that can happen again.

56 points by Manheim 5y ago

If imperialism is lindy, Russians have a massive leg up compared to america, which has a much poorer record of integrating its ethnic minorities

Nasreddin_Hodja 5y ago

> One day, Vladimir Putin will no longer lead Russia. Putin isn't the first ever russian leader and is not last. Next leader may be Ramzan Kadyrov, for example.

Pet_Ant 5y ago

I'd like to see deunification of Russia to Duchy of Moscow and spin off the other oblasts as independent states. It secures the region while undoing some of the colonisation. More countries I feel should be broken down into smaller independent states. More democratic that way. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Duchy_of_Moscow https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Duchy_of_Moscow

samhyde69 5y ago
Sure. But let's start with the usa
jansen555 5y ago
dmitriid 5y ago
> It secures the region while undoing some of the colonisation It doesn't necessarily secure the region, as now you will have conflicts in the Caucasus and weakening of Central Asian borders esp. with Afghanistan (which were always complemented by Russian forces). Don't forget, there will also be a lot of hurt feelings along the lines of "we were a large powerful country, look what happened to us, we must gain everything back". Edit: Also, who gets to keep the nuclear weapons?
- oneoff786 5y ago
  Whoever has them gets to keep them. Same with the oil. Seems unlikely that any split of Russia would happen smooth and nicely
- Aspos 5y ago
  Those are literally the Russian propaganda talking points. I've seen reasonable and intelligent people who used to believe these sincerely. Seems like you are under a similar influence.
- adventured 5y ago
  > Edit: Also, who gets to keep the nuclear weapons? Russia will keep the nuclear weapons. From the split there will still be a Russia, it'll hold Moscow and St. Petersburg for example. That new country will still be a significant economy with a large population (Western Russia obviously by far holds most of the nation's population density). Ideally they'd downscale the number of nukes they have (with the US also doing so), but that might be hoping for too much. The biggest problem with the splintering will be what China and North Korea do in their regions near the present Russian border. China would have to be very tempted to conquer more of Asia (some territory bordering the Sea of Japan and Okhotsk), going up the coast to open up more routes for their navy forces into the Pacific.
  - dmitriid 5y ago
    > From the split there will still be a Russia, it'll hold Moscow and St. Petersburg for example. Ah yes, the well-known locations of Russia's nuclear weapons, Moscow and St. Petersburg > That new country will still be a significant economy with a large population (Western Russia obviously by far holds most of the nation's population density) Population density does not translate into significant economy. Regions that don't receive subsidies from the federal budget are located mostly along the Ural mountains. Rather far from the capital cities. And you're forgetting that if Russia gets split, most economic ties between the various regions will be be either severed or significantly disrupted. The fall of USSR was only 31 years ago, and apparently people are unable to either remember it, or read up on it. > China would have to be very tempted to conquer more of Asia That's a very good observation. China will definitely move in to grab Siberia, aka the source of most of Russia's raw materials such as oil (so no "still significant economy" for the rest)
yike321123 5y ago
It sounds like a good idea but would this actually work? Russia itself while it pretends not to be is a very ethnically diverse region. The people living in certain sections of this area are very very different. Along with the fact that the population density varies from region to region how would with even give proper representation to those within the northern regions? Suggestions like this should be taken lightly as other nations have undergone similar "democratic" unifications such as ethopia and india which have lead to the further establishment of their systemic castes. In Ethopia we are starting to see the start of their civil war due to these underlying issues. While the current government claims it to be a regional conflict the underlying issues are much more severe.
g8oz 5y ago
There is a better chance of Texas seceding than Russia breaking up. And realistically neither are going to happen.
- adventured 5y ago
  There's excellent reason to doubt that premise is correct: Russia has a long history of losing and gaining territory. The last thing Russia has been is stable throughout its history, a break-up is far more likely than the opposite. Realistically Russia has no future other than being splintered. Nothing can stop that future outcome, it's already being pulled at now. Adding salt into that wound, the world now knows how exceptionally weak and backwards Russia's primary point of power is: their military. The projection of (supposed) immense military power has been integral for many decades in holding big Russia together, through fear, intimidation, and so on. They've burned up enormous resources trying to force it to remain together over time; it has broken their people, it has broken their potential, it has impoverished the Russian people to an extreme. And today we know they don't even have a potent military to show for it. And now the Russian people are being confronted with the consequences, the cost, of trying to force big Russia to remain together (the Russian people had been temporarily sheltered from paying that price for much of the prior two decades, and those days are over). Russia has to keep burning resources to force big Russia to hold together. That will increasingly come in the form of the Russian people watching their standard of living vaporize, on top of having lost essentially all human rights under Putin's two decade dictatorship. They will soon have nothing to lose, and they will react accordingly (although on a delay): prepare for revolution as an outcome.
  - watwut 5y ago
    I don't see all that many Russia regions trying to split up now. And to add, there will be no revolution in Russia for years. Revolutions happen only after police, secret service and other similar forces were weak enough for long enough. Russian ones are strong currently. There is no organized opposition to speak of, so even if they became weak overnight, it would still took years till the discontent organizes itself enough to make revolution.
pelasaco 5y ago
We saw it in the 90s and in that point of time it didn't make the region any safer. You could buy any soviet weapon everywhere. I think one of the reasons that US, UK and France were happy that Ukraine gave back their nuclear arsenal to Russia was exactly to avoid it being sold in the black market to some third country in the middle east.
- adventured 5y ago
  What we understand now is that the US (+ allies) should have purchased that arsenal and dismantled it (with Russian oversight), rather than allowing Russia to take it.
  - pelasaco 5y ago
    yes, that's accurate. It would probably demand different effort and budget however.
giraffe_lady 5y ago
"secures the region" from what and for whom? Assuming there is a single point of view from which this is true, and that you share it with the people living there, doesn't sound like less colonialism to me.
- hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago
  From Russia, of course. It is Russia that started the war with Ukraine now, and previously in Georgia and other places. We (Europeans) need a decent neighbor we can collaborate with, not a bully. We can disagree on many things like with Hungary for example, but Hungary is not having a fit over some issue and doesn't invade Romania for example.
  - postalrat 5y ago
    Keep the invasions to the middle east and asia where they belong. /s
    - giraffe_lady 5y ago
      Either as a joke or chillingly honest, I think this is basically where US and european foreign policy is with this.
    - hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago
      I believe by now the USA has finally learned that there is no single case where an invasion makes sense. Not only you won't help anyone, you just increase the number of people killed and further destabilize the situation you intended to "fix". BTW I consider the invasion on Afghanistan and Iraq as a pure fit of Bush over his inability to deal with the circumstances that provoked 9/11.
    - watwut 5y ago
      Yes, it would be much better for middle east and asia if Russia cleansed Ukrainians out of Ukraine and managed to continue to Poland, Finland, Moldavia, Czech Republic and so on. Somehow, magically, middle east would then became peaceful. As long as there is no world peace, no other world region has right to care about its security.
hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago
If the main thing is securing the region, deunification is not necessary - denuclearization would do just fine. Currently nobody is helping Ukraine in their tragedy only because of Russian nukes.
CountSessine 5y ago
Maybe… Something to keep in mind is that land-locked countries experience slower economic growth and have lower GDPs than countries with access to ports. Russia is mostly restricted to their Black Sea ports but they still have something. Break Russia up and you’ll be condemning a lot of people to a lower standard of living long-term.
- adventured 5y ago
  > Break Russia up and you’ll be condemning a lot of people to a lower standard of living long-term. That's of course not necessarily true. You haven't factored in the retardation of economic outcome that the present union is causing because it can only exist through the extreme and persistent application of force (which is very substantially regressive for human development). The reason they keep getting authoritarians century after century is because Russia as it presently stands should not exist, they can only hold it together with force. That comprehensive application of force destroys liberty, creativity, free expression, economic growth, investment, and so on. You can simultaneously have economic negatives from the lack of a port, in a landlocked Russia spin-off state scenario, and be better off being out from under the forever strangulating authoritarian umbrella of big Russia. That is to say, that's just how horrific and dampening of human potential it is to be under the boot of authoritarian Russia. There's a good reason so many nations that were formerly dominated by Russia are now exceeding them in GDP per capita.
  - CountSessine 5y ago
    There's a good reason so many nations that were formerly dominated by Russia are now exceeding them in GDP per capita. “Isn’t ruled by Vladimir Putin” is highly predictive of GDP, but “has a warm-water port” is far more predictive. Who is doing well? Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Georgia, Azerbaijan. Who isn’t doing well? Kazakhstan, Kirghizistan, Tajikistan… There are other variables. “Who has oil”, for example. But “who has unencumbered access to world trade through the sea” is the best.
  - nevermindiguess 5y ago
    It would be interesting to hear why you think Russia is an authoritarian state. Have you lived there? Have you studied it deeply? Do you have reliable sources to substantiate your claim? You certainly repeat what the western media says, but they are hardly an independent or unbiased source (speaking of authoritarian regimes). To me it looks like you may be making a lot of assumptions without having first hand experience or professional knowledge on the subject.
kwere 5y ago
Outer Manchuria & Siberia has been chinese since ancient time moment
throwaway3968 5y ago
In the pro-Western Russian circles, until recently, there was a notion of Great Neo-Russia. A supposed liberal democracy that would arise in the same borders, after putting everyone with blood on their hands on trial. It is now shattered to pieces by the tragedy of Ukrainian people. But there aren't any secession movements either (other than Chechnia, a can of worms of its own). We have no idea what awaits us, literally anything is possible.
elric 5y ago
I'm a bit puzzled by the matter-of-factness of this comment. You're essentially talking about impinging upon a people's right of self-determination. It has a kind of colonial smell to it. Calling it more democratic seems a stretch at best.
jl2718 5y ago
What about Ukraine?

newaccount2021 5y ago

[dead]

hello_hn_ 5y ago

thriftwy 5y ago

Manheim 5y ago
Leaving such a comment is rather strange and bring nothing of added value. I suppose you try to say that you discredit anything from Gessen. Can you elaborate on why?
- thriftwy 5y ago
  She is routinely used as a "fake Russian" by the Western press, whereas she left Russia decades ago (I think) and nobody noticed. This continues the policy of never listening to any actual Russians.
  - JKCalhoun 5y ago
    Maybe you can link to an interview with an actual Russian then as a foil.
    - thriftwy 5y ago
      Let's start with https://svpressa.ru/war21/article/328443/ https://svpressa.ru/war21/article/328443/
      - Manheim 5y ago
        "former Minister of Defense of the Donetsk People's Republic (DPR) Igor Strelkov." interviewed by a newspaper that isn't allowed to use the phrase war is not a very impressive alterntative to the Ink interview. But thx for sharing
        thriftwy 5y ago
        Let's not listen to actual Russians because we don't like them and their word choice "We have a Russian at home" "Meanwhile Russian at home" "Masha Gessen"

nkurz 5y ago

Nice interview. I thought one of the most insightful parts was near the end: AG: The West is aiding Ukrainians while wiring Russia money every day for oil and gas. MG: Exactly. Biden's speech was not a great democracy speech because it was hypocritical. The accepted rhetoric of "We don't want to be pulled into a shooting war with Russia" translates as "We feel bad, but we'd rather Ukrainians die than risk the lives of our own citizens." I'm not saying it's completely wrongheaded, but it does undercut any rhetoric of solidarity.

TrackerFF 5y ago
IIRC, the rationale behind continuing to pay Russia for P&G is that the alternative would hurt Europeans more than it would hurt Russia. Energy prices are pretty bad at the moment, over here in Europe.
- pelasaco 5y ago
  beside that, it would undermine the popularity of the support to Ukraine if the consequences from that support are too harsh to the Europeans. I'm not saying that I agree with that, but if Diesel reaches 3 euro/liter, if Gas prices are too high, people will start to demand an end of this War, even if that it means Ukraine must support some not ideal condition (i.e lost of territory)
ShivShankaran 5y ago
>The accepted rhetoric of "We don't want to be pulled into a shooting war with Russia" translates as "We feel bad, but we'd rather Ukrainians die than risk the lives of our own citizens." I'm not saying it's completely wrongheaded, but it does undercut any rhetoric of solidarity. That's not the reason at all. The main reason and also why airspace cannot be closed is that NATO cannot have a boots on the ground for a conflict with a major power like Russia. Involving NATO in conflict is the ONLY reason why this war would turn nuclear. And very fast. It would be absurdly stupid to send troops to fight on behalf of Ukrainians. Biden and his son have investments all over Ukraine and he is just terrified of losing all of them. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/01/us/politics/biden-son-ukraine.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/01/us/politics/biden-son-ukr... "Among those who had a stake in the outcome was Hunter Biden, Mr. Biden’s younger son, who at the time was on the board of an energy company owned by a Ukrainian oligarch who had been in the sights of the fired prosecutor general."

Barrin92 5y ago

I find Gessen's characterization of Russia as totalitarian confusing. Totalitarianism in particular in the historical sense that Gessen uses when they draw parallels to the 20th century requires complete popular mobilization. The people are united in society, society is united by rulers, the rulers all culminate in the singular dictator, and so forth. However Gessen correctly points out that loneliness and atomization is everywhere in Russia. It may be repressive, but there's hardly a level of energy, ideology or unification in Russia that could render it totalitarian. The same is true almost anywhere in the modern world. Nowhere are there going to be millions of brownshirts patrolling the streets for the party. I mean, even today you can argue with Russians on the internet, the country is still as weird as it may seem more liberal right now than it was during any point in the 20th century. There's state television and crazy commentators of course but the reason the war can continue if anything seems to be more indifference than zealous support. Russia today is a society that runs on fumes, and the grandiose predictions by Gessen like 'nuclear strikes on Poland', or breakups rest on comparisons to the high energy, combustive situation in 20th century Europe. Even characterizing the war as 'big and imperial' seems sketchy when it is downplayed as a special military operation, hidden from the people and being fought by a professional army and private military contractors in a fundamentally 21st century almost hybrid way.

panarky 5y ago
Is "mobilization" really the primary indicator of a totalitarian regime? I think the root word "total" might be more indicative. When most aspects of a citizen's life are dominated by the party or the state, and alternative or competing non-state institutions don't exist, that's totalitarian. Russia looks quite totalitarian according to that definition, with everything from local government to media, religion, business and cultural institutions tightly controlled by the the central clique of mafia-style oligarchs. Does any independent civil society exist in Russia?
- Barrin92 5y ago
  No there isn't much of a civil society but neither is every facet of live in Russia controlled by anyone. If you're an average Russian right now you work in the private sector in a job of your choosing, you have a faith of your choosing and go about your day, there's no party or state to be seen. (what 'party' even, as Russia isn't communist any more). Oligarchy and totalitarianism are opposed concepts. Russia is indeed pretty corrupt, oligarchic and mafia like, but that means there isn't that much state capacity left as private and public interests are divided and self-interested. Actual totalitarians first annihilate the oligarchs which siphon from the state. Stalin was totalitarian. Mao's red guards were totalitarian. No comparable force exists in modern Russia.

xyzzy21 5y ago

This is how Russia separates from the EU/USA/West. It won't end with this. The title presupposed that the West is "indispensible" - it's NOT. As is already being seen as the Petrodollar teeters and other currencies are being adopted for oil. In terms of dollar value - it's a self-created disaster.

jl2718 5y ago

This is how it was ending before the push for EU/NATO membership of former Soviet states - a long slow disintegration into independent states run by emergent tycoons and kleptocrats propped up by new markets. For instance, a global mining company promises investment in a region if they can get a new government with favorable policies for them. The old Russian plutocrats get a piece of the business and everybody’s happy. Now it’s different. Putin’s regime may not survive this crisis, but regardless, ‘the west’ has once again become a threat to all Russians, and the next regime may be a response to that. I’ll accept any recent example of a interventionist war-driven regime change as evidence against this prediction. A nationalist Russian Federation is a lot more dangerous to us than a kleptocracy. The press loves to characterize Putin as a madman. Same with Saddam Hussein and Muammar Ghaddafi and every other flashy dictator with expensive tastes. This is just stupid. Their thinking is more like an overpaid CEO than fundamentalist zealot. That makes them predictable and controllable. You don’t know what will come with the next regime. Even if you remove all animosity and nationalism, there’s still going to be a fight over resources. Putin had an entire state military apparatus to use against his people to secure those resources for himself. We do too, but the cost will be much higher. Putin was willing to sell his country just for a little bit of luxury and personal security. I’m not saying that was a good thing, but it was a structure that we knew how to deal with. The military and economic posture to effectively deal with radical populism may be very different. Pontificating on this subject has been all the rage among military theorists since Huntington’s thesis, with trillions spent on the assumption that we knew what we were doing. Now we learn that we didn’t get it quite right. There’s a lot I don’t understand about the doctrine that guides ‘the west’, and I’m not necessarily skeptical, just uninformed in some ways. I’d like to understand the threat model we are operating under, and the basic strategy to control those threats. Or maybe it’s economic opportunity we are after. For whom? What does the world look like in their best vision of it? Do the nations and people that oppose ‘the west’ have an accurate view of that, or has it been unfairly demonized? Somewhere there is either a legitimate clash of interests, or a severe miscommunication. Perhaps we ought to commit to only killing each other over the former, and keeping track of exactly what that is. Somehow I doubt that wars could be sustained in that circumstance.

alkonaut 5y ago

It’s certainly how “a Russia” ends. We consider nazi Germany different from Germany, in the sense that nazi Germany ended and a different Germany came along. Let’s hope something like that can happen again.